LexRAJASTHAN WELFARE SOCIETY versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJASTHAN WELFARE SOCIETY
A
v.
ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN
APRIL 7, 2005
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
B
Grant-in-aid :
Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989-Sections
7, 16 and 2(r)-Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions C
(Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993-Ru/es
14 and Note 2 (appended to Rule 14), 82-Payment of gratuity by the aided
educational institutions to their employees-Inclusion of, while computing
Grant-in-aid-Held: Gratuity is not approved expenditure within the meaning
of the Rules, hence, not includible while computing the amount of Grant-in- D
aid-Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The question which arose for consideration in these appeals and SLPs
is whether the amount of gratuity payable to the employees of the aided
educational institutions has to be taken into consideration for computing
the amount of grant-in-aid.
E
Dismissing the appeals and SLPs, the Court
Held : 1. Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act,
1989 stipulates that no aid can be claimed as a matter of right and the
aid may cover such part of the expenditure of the institution as may be F
prescribed. The prescribed expenditure is as contained in the Rajasthan
Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and
Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993. Under Rule 14, the approved
expenditure can relate to only items from (a) to (v) mentioned therein. It
is nobody's case that the expenditure on gratuity falls under items (b) to G
(v). Under Item (a) only expenditure on actual salary and provident fund
-
contribution not exceeding 8.33% in respect of teaching and non-teaching
staff can be included. Tl}e amount to be paid as a. gratuity fo terms of
Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, cannot be said to be a part of
'actual salary' as postulated by Rule 14. (392-G-H; 393-A-B)
387
fl
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1005] 3. $.C.R.
A
Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer
and Ors., (20041 1 SCC 755, held inapplicable.
2. Note 2 appended to Rule 14 states that ordinarily the charges on
account of payment of gratuity paid to former teachers are not admitted
for the purpose of grant-in-aid unless the Rules on the subject are
B approved by the Government. The words 'the ru~es on the subject' in Note
2 cannot be interpreted to mean rule contained in other part of the Rules,
namely, Rule 82. If Rule 82 is to ·be interpreted as a rule approved by the
Government to contribute the amount of gratuity while computing grant-
in-aid, the question of appending Note 2 would not have arisen. Clearly,
C Note 2 refers to Rules framed by Non-Government Educational
Institutions which are to be approved by the Government and not the
Government itself making the Rules and approving the same. [393-C-E]
3. The gratuity cannot be termed_ to be an emolument for the time
being payable to the employees so as to come within the definition of salary
D defined in Section 2 (r) of the Act. Further, Rule 14 uses the word 'actual
salary'. Gratuity is payable at the time of retirement/termination of the
employment. The. non-recurring payment of this nature cannot be included
in the definition of salary. Further, gratuity cannot be included in the
approved expenditure as under Rule 9 the State Government can sanction
E the. grants under four Heads provided therein and gratuity does not fall
under any one of them. It is not claimed that gratuity falls under Heads 2
to 4. Head No.l is 'maintenance or recurring grant'. Admittedly a gratuity
cannot come under the category ofmaintetrnnce. It is also not a recurring
grant. Therefore, the gratuity within the meaning of the Act and the Rules
cannot form part of recurring grant. It is not includible as part of
F approved expenditure for the purposes of computing the amount of grant
payable to the appellant. {393-F; 394-C-EJ
Metal Box Company of India Limitedv. Their Workmen, [1969) l SCR
790, held inapplicable.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2936 of2002.
H
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.2000 ,of the,Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.S.A. (W) No. 323 of 1998.
WITH
'".;.
'
. ,·•
~ .. i.' '.
. ..
~ .. ," '\
..... ·. · ... ·.. ...
·. ·. '·.
:fl-
'
RAJASTHAN WELFARE SOCIETY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 3 89
S.L.P.(C) No. 21640/2003, C.A. Nos. 2934, 2935, 2940/2002, S.L.P. A
(C) No. 4544/2004.
AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.